Henry Gilchrist v. South Carolina Highway Patrol

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:11-cv-03129-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998846442]. Mailed to: Gilchrist. [12-1168]

Appeal: 12-1168

Doc: 5

Filed: 05/03/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1168

HENRY FLOYD GILCHRIST,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH
CAROLINA
HIGHWAY
PATROL;
GREENVILLE
CASUALITY
INSURANCE COMPANY INC.; VITALIY PIPENKO; V Y EXPRESS INC.,
a/k/a
Vera
Vitalyevn
Pipenko;
STATE
AUTO
INSURANCE
COMPANIES; JACKIE PAGE; MARY BLACK HOSPITAL; ALLSTATE FIRE
AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; GEROD ALLISON, Allstate
Agency,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
Timothy M. Cain, District
Judge. (7:11-cv-03129-TMC)

Submitted:

April 26, 2012

Decided:

May 3, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Floyd Gilchrist, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1168

Doc: 5

Filed: 05/03/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Henry
court’s

order

Floyd

Gilchrist

denying

complaint.

The

relief

district

seeks

on

his

court

to

appeal

42

the

U.S.C.

referred

district

§ 1983

this

(2006)

case

to

a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West
2006

&

Supp.

2011).

The

magistrate

judge

recommended

that

relief be denied and advised Gilchrist that the failure to file
timely

and

specific

objections

to

this

recommendation

could

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation.
The
magistrate

timely

judge’s

filing

of

recommendation

specific
is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

noncompliance.
Cir.

1985);

Gilchrist

warned

of

the

consequences

of

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th

see

has

been

also

waived

Thomas

v.

appellate

Arn,

474

review

U.S.

by

140

failing

specific objections after receiving proper notice.

(1985).
to

file

Accordingly,

we dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED
2